Orijin

Friday, 2 January 2015

Eratus Akingbola has been acquitted of his ₦47.5B theft charge by the appeal court

PM News reports that a Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos has quashed the
22-count charge brought against the former Managing Director of
Intercontinental Bank Plc, Dr. Erastus Akingbola by the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Ruling on Akingbola’s
application on jurisdiction, the court presided over by Justice Amina Augie
held that the High Court of Lagos State presided over by Justice Lateef
Lawal-Akapo lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed against him by the
commission

Justice Augie said it amounted to miscarriage of
justice for the lower court to have dismissed Akingbola’s application
challenging its jurisdiction on the matter.

“The appeal is meritorious and allowed,” she
declared.

“I am convinced that the lower court refused to
align itself with the decision of this court in Nwosu’s case,” she further
held.

Akingbola and his co-defendant, Bayo Dada, had
filed two separate applications challenging the jurisdiction of the court to
hear the 22-count charge filed against them by the EFCC.

But, the lower court, in its ruling on 2 May,
2014 dismissed their applications.

Justice Lawal-Akapo had then held that the
charges preferred against the defendants were within its competence and
jurisdiction to determine.

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the high court,
Akingbola and Dada approached the Appeal Court, praying that the trial court’s
decision be set aside.

Delievering the judgement, Justice Augie
declared that the lower court fell into serious error by not abiding by the
decision on Nwosu’s case adding, “It is most unfair and is an injustice”.

According to her, the lower court has no option
than to follow the decision of the higher court on Nwosu’s case.

“The point must be made that the decision of
this court in Nwosu’s case was based on proof of evidence.”

The judge noted that all the charges against the
defendants arose out of capital market transactions.

“Only federal high court is conferred with the
exclusive jurisdiction to try cases of capital market transaction,” she
stressed.

The appellate court held that the lower court
owes it a duty to compare and contrast the documents cited by parties.

“It is its duty to examine materials brought
before him. It is the role of the judge to do justice in adjudicating all the
cases brought before him.

“One sided justice would amount to injustice and
favouring one side.

“The proof of evidence was there but the trial
judge at the lower court accused the defendants of not furnishing him with the
documents.

“He has failed in his duty.”

Justice Augie further held that the appeal filed
by the defendants has nothing to do with evidence, noting that the lower court
failed to go through argument canvassed before it assumed jurisdiction on the
matter.

She emphasized that the issue of jurisdiction
should not have been toyed with by the lower court.

“I agree with the appellant that the lower court
ought to have gone through the proof of evidence.

“There is no way a charge of stealing can stand
without going through the proof of evidence,” she declared.